Complete textual-variant dossier
Adverse entailment established
Sections distinguish readings, edition history, evidence, theological consequences, and the Research Center's evaluation. CBGM is an analytical tool; editorial committees—not the software—make textual decisions.
1Passage and issue
Passage
Issue
The received narrative says the crowd both outran the boat and gathered to Jesus. The shorter critical form keeps the outstripping but omits the final gathering clause.
Variant class
Substitution or composite variation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“They outwent them, and came together unto him.”
Authorized Version
“They ran afoot thither out of all cities, and outwent them, and came together unto him.” — Mark 6:33
Edition note
The Research Center uses the received Greek text underlying the Authorized Version as its baseline; edition-specific differences are recorded when the variation unit requires them.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
“They outwent them,” without “and came together unto him”; other witnesses preserve only one component or alter the motion verb.
Translation or explanation
“They outwent them,” without “and came together unto him”; other witnesses preserve only one component or alter the motion verb.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
Metzger reports the UBS4 committee's treatment of the variation unit. The note grounds the relevant decision in the weight and distribution of external attestation; the printed confidence rating represented here is {B}. This is a controlled synopsis rather than a quotation.
Locator: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., note on Mark 6:33
ECM / CBGM evidence and editors
No passage-specific ECM/CBGM editorial explanation is attached to this record. Official method sources describe the CBGM as a set of coherence procedures, not a decision-maker: editors define variation units and local stemmata and evaluate pre-genealogical, genealogical, and stemmatic coherence together with transcriptional, intrinsic, and other philological evidence.
4UBS6 and intended NA29 revision
No UBS6 / intended NA29 main-text change is recorded for this passage in the controlled 169-change ledger.
No change row is attached to this passage.
UBS6 is published, and the German Bible Society identifies its Greek main text as identical to the intended NA29 main text. The complete NA29 volume and its apparatus remain forthcoming. Project-ledger rows retain their source and verification statements until they are checked against the published UBS6 text and, when available, the NA29 apparatus.
5Doctrinal and four-point analysis
Effect class
Exegetical or interpretive consequence
Exact proposition affected
No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Doctrinal analysis
Exegetical or interpretive consequence. The record does not establish that the variant by itself removes an entire Christian doctrine; explicit wording, exegesis, and cumulative testimony must be distinguished.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Mark 6:33, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending. The critical text keeps the first movement but drops the second. Two movements, not two rival stories Some critics call the Textus Receptus a conflation: one stream had “they outwent them,” another “they gathered to him,” and a later copy combined both.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Mark 6:33 must be applied to comparable readings as well. A principle such as age, difficulty, brevity, or coherence cannot be decisive here and quietly reversed elsewhere merely to escape a historical, grammatical, or theological difficulty.
Consequences
Exegetical or interpretive consequence: No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Preconditions of intelligibility
The argument presupposes stable authorship, meaningful language, objective logical norms, transmissible evidence, and a coherent account of how Scripture can be received and identified by the church. The analysis tests whether the method can make those conditions intelligible without reducing the text to an indefinitely revisable editorial construct.
This framework examines an argument and its conditions; it does not claim to read an editor's private motives.
6Argument for the received reading
External and historical evidence
Principal competing reading: “They outwent them,” without “and came together unto him”; other witnesses preserve only one component or alter the motion verb. Other witnesses vary the verbs so widely that the line became a small workshop of scribal geography. The Research Center should therefore tag “conflation” as a text-critical judgment, not a documentary fact, until genealogy at this unit is demonstrated across the relevant witnesses.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Copyists who thought the statement implausible could replace “outwent” with “came to” or another more ordinary verb. “Came together” describes their relation to the Lord. A scribe may also remove what seems redundant after the crowd has already reached the place.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
In the received text they outwent the disciples and came together unto Jesus. Two movements, not two rival stories Some critics call the Textus Receptus a conflation: one stream had “they outwent them,” another “they gathered to him,” and a later copy combined both.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Mark 6:33. It supplies the confessional context in which manuscript transmission, broad reception, and the church's actual possession of Scripture are evaluated together.
Canonical coherence with the rest of Scripture
Canonical coherence remains an explicit test: a proposed reading must make grammatical and theological sense within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. No conflict is asserted merely because two editions differ; the claimed incoherence must be demonstrated at this passage.
Canonical-coherence verdict
The Authorized Version is retained where its representation of the TR forms a coherent reading within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. Any competing form must demonstrate an equal or better canonical fit rather than merely invoke an edition or method label.
Response to the principal critical argument
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending. The critical text keeps the first movement but drops the second. Two movements, not two rival stories Some critics call the Textus Receptus a conflation: one stream had “they outwent them,” another “they gathered to him,” and a later copy combined both.
Conclusion
A true conflation normally combines readings that circulated separately, and Mark 6:33 supplies that pattern. Still, the label describes a proposed history rather than an observable event. The combined form could precede both shortened descendants. The Research Center should therefore tag “conflation” as a text-critical judgment, not a documentary fact, until genealogy at this unit is demonstrated across the relevant witnesses.
The full received movement should be retained. It accounts for the geography and for the assembled multitude without forcing one verb to carry both ideas. The crowd outstrips the boat, then streams from its several roads toward the one Shepherd waiting to receive it.
Logical entailment
The Authorized Version serves as the faithful English representation. The preservation claim applies immediately to the authentic Hebrew and Greek texts—not to an English translation as though it were the inspired source.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At Mark 6:33, the received text reads “They outwent them, and came together unto him.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “They ran afoot thither out of all cities, and outwent them, and came together unto him.” — Mark 6:33”. The assessed critical reading is “They outwent them,” without “and came together unto him”; other witnesses preserve only one component or alter the motion verb.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The immediate local effect is exegetical or interpretive; this argument does not claim that a distinct Christian doctrine disappears from the verse.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Mark 6:33, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “They outwent them, and came together unto him.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “They ran afoot thither out of all cities, and outwent them, and came together unto him.” — Mark 6:33”. The assessed critical form is “They outwent them,” without “and came together unto him”; other witnesses preserve only one component or alter the motion verb.”.
- The received and critical forms are not the same at this locus. Therefore, if the competing critical form is original, the received form is secondary rather than the authentic wording at this place. The immediate consequence is: At Mark 6:33, the received text reads “They outwent them, and came together unto him.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “They ran afoot thither out of all cities, and outwent them, and came together unto him.” — Mark 6:33”. The assessed critical reading is “They outwent them,” without “and came together unto him”; other witnesses preserve only one component or alter the motion verb.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The immediate local effect is exegetical or interpretive; this argument does not claim that a distinct Christian doctrine disappears from the verse.
- If the received form at this place is secondary rather than original, then the authentic Hebrew/Greek text was not kept pure at this place in the received textual tradition; therefore the unqualified confessional preservation claim must be denied or redefined.
Ultimate preservation consequence
If the competing reading is original and the received reading is secondary, then God did not preserve and keep pure the authentic text at this place in the received textual tradition. The unqualified confessional claim that Scripture was kept pure in all ages must therefore be denied or redefined.
Sources
- Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)Chapter 1, section 8 — Governing confessional preservation claim
- F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorized VersionReceived Greek reading
- Digital ECM — Mark 6:33Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- German Bible Society — UBS6 publications and relation to NA29Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- German Bible Society — The Sixth Edition of the Greek New TestamentCurrent critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
Read the full research essay and its sources
Passage: Mark 6:33
Received reading: “They outwent them, and came together unto him.”
Principal competing reading: “They outwent them,” without “and came together unto him”; other witnesses preserve only one component or alter the motion verb.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“They ran afoot thither out of all cities, and outwent them, and came together unto him.” — Mark 6:33
The crowd sees the boat leave, recognizes the travelers, and runs around the shore. In the received text they outwent the disciples and came together unto Jesus. The critical text keeps the first movement but drops the second. Other witnesses vary the verbs so widely that the line became a small workshop of scribal geography.
The first action is surprising. How could people on foot outrun a boat? A contrary wind, a short coastal route, and the boat’s deliberate withdrawal all make it possible. Copyists who thought the statement implausible could replace “outwent” with “came to” or another more ordinary verb.
Two movements, not two rival stories
Some critics call the Textus Receptus a conflation: one stream had “they outwent them,” another “they gathered to him,” and a later copy combined both. The pattern deserves notice because the component readings do survive separately.
The combined sentence is also perfectly sequential. The people first beat the boat to the destination; as travelers from multiple towns arrive, they converge on Jesus. “Outwent” compares them with the disciples. “Came together” describes their relation to the Lord. Mark often piles verbs to show rapid movement, and the next verse assumes a great crowd already assembled when Jesus lands.
Loss of either half is easy. Repeated conjunctions, plural verb endings, and pronouns make a short eye-skip possible. A scribe may also remove what seems redundant after the crowd has already reached the place. Separate shorter forms do not prove that the full form was manufactured; they can be fragments of it.
The distinction contributes to the feeding narrative. The people’s urgency is real, but it does not earn the meal. Jesus sees them as sheep without a shepherd, teaches them, and supplies what they cannot provide. Their running brings need to the shore; his compassion turns the gathering into a banquet.
A true conflation normally combines readings that circulated separately, and Mark 6:33 supplies that pattern. Still, the label describes a proposed history rather than an observable event. The combined form could precede both shortened descendants. The Research Center should therefore tag “conflation” as a text-critical judgment, not a documentary fact, until genealogy at this unit is demonstrated across the relevant witnesses.
The full received movement should be retained. It accounts for the geography and for the assembled multitude without forcing one verb to carry both ideas. The crowd outstrips the boat, then streams from its several roads toward the one Shepherd waiting to receive it.
Sources and further reading
- F. H. A. Scrivener, ed., The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge, 1894).
- Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software, 2010), text and apparatus.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., notes on the stated passage.
- Mark 6:30–44; Matthew 14:13–21; Luke 9:10–17.
7Related materials
Open a group to follow connected articles, books, biographies, media, research notes, variants, or downloads. Research Center relationships use permanent record IDs; external items retain their actual link.
- Record
- VAR-2021
- Status
- Preliminary
- Version
- 1.1-dossier
- Review
- Level B — Editorial synthesis
- Editor
- Chris Thomas
- Reviewer
- Independent reviewer pending assignment
- First date
- 1st century · Date Range
- Last revised
- 2026-07-22
Evidence and editorial controls
- Verification
- Passage, principal readings, and stated editorial comparison checked against Scrivener’s received Greek text and the SBLGNT apparatus; exhaustive manuscript collation remains open. Metzger commentary entries were matched by exact passage where present; ECM/CBGM rationale is passage-specific only when an official editorial explanation is cited. Ledger rows are identified as UBS6 / intended NA29 data but retain their row-level verification caveats pending direct collation.
- Rights and access
- Original editorial synthesis. Biblical readings are short scholarly quotations; cited editions and digital witnesses retain their stated rights and access conditions.
- Known limitations
- This staging record summarizes the principal variation unit and representative evidence. It is not a fresh collation of every extant manuscript, version, lectionary, or patristic citation.
Links from this record
No public outgoing links are recorded.
Records that cite or connect here
No public backlinks are recorded.
Corrections and evidence submissions
No correction submission is presently attached to this record. Submit evidence or read the correction policy.
Chris Thomas, “Mark 6:33 — “Outwent Them” or “Came Together unto Him”? The Crowd’s Movement,” VAR-2021, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas